The Way We Ask for Money… The Emergence and Institutionalization of Grant Writing Practices in Academia

Velarde, Kathia Serrano

doi:10.1007/s11024-018-9346-4

Cited by 39 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, guidelines and policy on grant evaluations and distribution may be negotiated and acted upon by both applicants and reviewers. Candidates may also address reviewers as significant others in anticipating the forthcoming reviewer report (Serrano Velarde, 2018). These expectations on the part of the applicant can include prior experiences and perceptions of specific review practices, processes and outcomes in specific circumstances.…”

Section: The Academic Genres Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Academia

Forsberg

Geschwind

Levander

et al. 2022

Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, we outline the notion of peer review and its relation to the autonomy of the academic profession and the contract between science and society. This is followed by an introduction of some key themes regarding the practices of peer review. Next, we specify some reasons to further explore different practices of peer review. Briefly, the state of the art is presented. Finally, the structure of this volume and its individual contributions are presented.

show abstract

Section: The Academic Genres Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Academia

Forsberg

Geschwind

Levander

et al. 2022

Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the applications, candidates negotiate the guidelines when addressing reviewers as 'significant others' in the promotion process (Serrano Velarde, 2018). In alignment with the guidelines, the application dossiers in our study consist of portfolios with written reflections on the applicant's educational practice, as well as attachments with various testimonies, course evaluations, and examples, normally complemented with CVs.…”

Section: Faculty Guidelines and Candidate Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Academic Promotion of Excellent Teachers

Forsberg

Levander

Elmgren

2022

Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While research merits have long been the priority in the recognition of institutions and scholars, teaching is often downplayed, appearing as a practice of less worth in Academia. To counteract this tendency, various systems to upgrade the value of education and to promote teaching excellence have been introduced by higher education institutions on a global scale. In this chapter, we explore the values and beliefs unveiled in the promotion of academics in such a system. We employ empirical data collected from an inquiry into the promotion of distinguished university teachers at a comprehensive university in Sweden. An analysis of reviewers’ judgements and legitimations shows that the intersection between promotion, peer review, and excellent teaching affects not only the peer review process, but also the notion of the distinguished university teacher.

show abstract

“…Naturally, this principle of self-reproduction can also be seen in more ambiguous terms. The tendency of researchers to assess contributions of younger peers in terms of quality criteria derived from their own scientific experience may contribute to a structural conservatism, not least regarding how scientific work is represented for administration and review (Cole, 2000; Fuller, 2000; Kuhn, 1962; Serrano Velarde, 2018). The spread of formal research evaluation practices has given the longstanding discussion about the ambivalent role of experience-based judgment in peer review an interesting new spin.…”

Section: Biographical Evidence Of Scientists As a Basis For Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Filling in the gaps: The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review

Kaltenbrunner

Rijcke

2019

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.

show abstract

The Way We Ask for Money… The Emergence and Institutionalization of Grant Writing Practices in Academia

Cited by 39 publications

References 46 publications

Peer Review in Academia

Peer Review in Academia

Peer Review in Academic Promotion of Excellent Teachers

Filling in the gaps: The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About